*promote. Osama was unarmed.

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, May 6th, 2011 10:38am PDT - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

sighs...
i like the judge and agree with him sometimes (other times..not so much) but his synopsis here is seriously flawed.
maybe due to the fact that he is no longer a standing judge and missed this particular abomination:
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/military-commissions-act-2006
so lets give a huge middle finger to the dynamic evil duo of addington and woo who helped write this fascist piece of crap.
with the insistence of cheney these two fuckwads helped usher in presidential powers unheard of in our entire history and the complicit (wussified) media, never bothered to inform the public.
obama has not recinded ONE of these newly attained powers under bush.

so..um..yeah.
the president CAN order an assasination AND deem YOU an enemy combatant.

I would dearly like to see the footage of the assault on Osama's compound to see if his killing was truly justified until that footage is released I have to agree with this guy.

Isn't it a delicious irony that Moshe Landau died the day before they killed OBL?

A great reminder of the times when even the most abhorrent criminals in history stood trial in front of a court instead of simply getting executed.

It strikes me as funny how the right's partisanship makes them twist themselves in knots.

Killing Osama bin Laden is a sign that Obama has crossed some Rubicon, beyond which no man is safe? Please.

Napolitano himself said it's legal if we declare war. I know it's fashionable amongst the silly to pretend that there's something qualitatively different about a "declaration of war" and an "Authorization to Use Military Force", but I don't see a rational basis for it. In both cases, you're having Congress grant explicit authority for the US military to be used.

Well, the 2001 authorization to use military force allows the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against persons who authorized, planned or committed the 9/11 attacks. So, it's legal.

>> ^NetRunner:

It strikes me as funny how the right's partisanship makes them twist themselves in knots.
Killing Osama bin Laden is a sign that Obama has crossed some Rubicon, beyond which no man is safe? Please.
Napolitano himself said it's legal if we declare war. I know it's fashionable amongst the silly to pretend that there's something qualitatively different about a "declaration of war" and an "Authorization to Use Military Force", but I don't see a rational basis for it. In both cases, you're having Congress grant explicit authority for the US military to be used.
Well, the 2001 authorization to use military force allows the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against persons who authorized, planned or committed the 9/11 attacks. So, it's legal.


Yay! What a proud statist!

Deployment of United States Military on a foreign nation's sovereign territory, interesting, if not an outright declaration of war.

Aside from what everyone thinks. The Executive Branch is running, fucking, rampant. It has been for sometime now long before Bush or Obama.

New Rule: The Commander in Chief doesn't get to order troops into any country without a formal declaration of war. Which is how it, fucking, should be. Not a half assed legal right to send troops into a country, a full on declaration of war.

Heh, like our opinions actually matter.

Moving this video to blankfist's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

I think this is Dead. (Sucks cause I wanted to see it.)